I find it hard to imagine that golf courses are as good as cemeteries for habitat since they are loaded with herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and every other kind of -cide you can imagine. Any wildlife that lives there must be loaded with toxic chemicals.
> I'm not an expert (but rather, someone with a deep interest) in urban > ecology, but my understanding is that areas like cemeteries, > ballfields, golf courses, etc., often act as ecological traps, > providing enough low-quality habitat to foster low-levels of > biodiversity, but preventing species from adequately thriving and > reproducing into successive generations. > > My thoughts are that these low-quality habitats should be considered > in a comprehensive urban management plan, with the caveat that they > are not areas where you would expect high levels of biodiversity, and > that they could potentially create localized scenarios of diminishing > diversity. However, there is research out there that show that > effective habitat management (especially in places like golf courses > and parks) can increase habitat suitability to the point of > encouraging sustainable rates of biodiversity. But please, someone > with more expertise in this area, correct me if I'm wrong. > > -Lauren > > > > Quoting John Mickelson <[email protected]>: > >> Working in NYC and looking at the spatial dimensions of biodiversity >> in this heavily urbanized setting. >> >> Wondering what folks thoughts are re: the extent to which cemeteries >> (and, to a lesser extent: ball fields, play grounds, golf courses >> etc...) "really" serve as habitat. >> >> Clearly they serve multiple purposes and are utilized by a range of >> flora and fauna (presumably more so within "green" managed >> programs), but should they really form a core element within >> a comprehensive urban conservation plan? >> >> I'm finding myself able to argue both sides..... thoughts? >> >> -John >> >
